Madras High Court
Sekar vs Mrs.Radhar on 29 June, 2021
CRP.No.434/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 29.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
CRP [NPD] .No.434/2019 & CMP.No.2917/2019
[Video Conferencing]
1.Sekar
2.Munusamy .. Petitioners /
Defendants 4 & 5
Versus
1.Mrs.Radhar .. Respondent
/ Plaintiff
2.The Inspector of Police
Selaiyur Police Station
Selaiyur, Chennai.
3.The Assistant Commissioner of Police
Selaiyur Range, Velacherry Main Road,
East Tambaram, Chennai-59,
Tambaram Taluk & Firka,
Kancheepuram District.
4.The Commissioner of Police
Chennai City, Egmore, Chennai. .. Respondents /
Defendants 1 to 3
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.No.434/2019
Prayer : - Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 24.10.2018
passed in IA.No.52/2018 in OS.No.83/2008 on the file of the District
Munsif Court, Tambaram.
For Petitioner : Mr.Sreenivasulu for
Mr.N.Neelakandan
For R1 : No appearance
For RR2 to 4 : Dr.S.Suriya
Government Advocate
ORDER
(1) Defendants 4 and 5 in OS.No.83/2008 are the revision petitioners
herein.
(2) OS.No.83 of 2008 had been filed before the District Munsif Court at
Tambaram, by the plaintiff/1st respondent herein against five
defendants. The 1st defendant was the Inspector of Police, Selaiyur
Police Station. The 2nd defendant was the Assistant Commissioner of
Police, Selaiyur Range. The 3rd defendant was the Commissioner of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.No.434/2019
Police, Chennai City and defendants 4 and 5 are individuals, who are
the revision petitioners herein.
(3) The said suit had been filed seeking for permanent injunction against
defendants 4 and 5 / revision petitioners herein from trespassing into
the suit property and causing disturbances to the plaintiff and her
family. An additional relief was also sought for, directing defendants
1 to 3, viz., the police officials to implement the decree which had
been earlier obtained in OS.No.188 of 2003 by providing protection
to the plaintiff and her family. It must be mentioned that the plaintiff
had also filed a suit in OS.No.188 of 2003 before the District Munsif
Court at Tambaram, against yet another defendant and in that suit, she
also claimed for permanent injunction, restraining that particular
defendant from interfering with her peaceful possession of the suit
property.
(4) A perusal of the records show that both the properties, viz., the
property mentioned in OS.No.188 of 2003 and the property
mentioned in OS.No.83 of 2008, are the same, viz., the house
property at Old Door No.3, New Door No.13, Erikkarai Street, East
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.No.434/2019
Tambaram, Chennai.
(5) Insofar as OS.No.83 of 2008 is concerned, the revision petitioners
herein / defendants 4 and 5, had been set exparte. Thereafter, the
plaintiff was invited to tender evidence and the evidence was
tendered and a judgment and decree was passed on 19.02.2010. By
the said judgment, the first relief of permanent injunction was
granted. But the second relief, viz., a direction to the police officials
to implement the earlier decree passed in OS.No.188 of 2003 was
dismissed. It is thus seen that there has been an application of mind
by the learned District Munsif, Tambaram, with respect to the grant of
reliefs, even though the suit was decreed exparte.
(6) Thereafter, the present revision petitioners / defendants 4 and 5 filed
IA.No.52 of 2018, seeking to condone the delay of 2577 days in filing
an application to set aside the exparte decree. That application came
up for consideration on 24.10.2018 and the learned District Munsif,
dismissed the said application which had been filed under Section 5
of the Limitation Act. The learned Judge held that the reason given
by the revision petitioners herein that they did not have the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.No.434/2019
knowledge about the decree and judgment and that, they laid blame
on their counsel, cannot be accepted and had rejected the said
reasons. It was also stated the revision petitioners herein had not
taken any steps against the counsel.
(7) A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the said application also
shows that, that is the only reason which had been stated. They stated
that they had engaged a counsel. The name of the counsel was not
given. Then they stated that they had engaged another counsel to
ascertain the stage of the case. The name of that particular counsel
has also not been given. Further, it had been stated that there is a
delay of seven years in filing the application to set aside the exparte
decree. It would only be appropriate that the said application suffers
an order of dismissal warranting no interference at the hands of this
Court.
(8) Therefore, I hold that the Civil Revision Petition should also suffers
an order of dismissal. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.No.434/2019
29.06.2021
AP
Internet : Yes
To
The District Munsif
Tambaram, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.No.434/2019
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.,
AP
CRP.No.434/2019
29.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
